Prepared for lenders, CDCs, and federal agencies to SBA SOP 50 10 8, USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, and conventional underwriting standards. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Microgrid feasibility is avoided-cost and resilience-value analysis: the host load and its tariff, the generation and storage mix against that load, outage costs that justify the resilience premium, and the contract structure — energy services agreement, ownership, or utility partnership — that allocates risk. Campus, military, and industrial microgrids are evaluated against their specific reliability requirements.
Methodology uses interval load data, tariff analysis, resilience-value assessment, and technology cost benchmarks, with the financial model presenting avoided-cost savings and contracted payments against program coverage standards.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Clean-energy engagements are prepared to USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 where REAP and B&I apply — including the energy-production documentation, incentive analysis, and payback arithmetic REAP requires — and to conventional and institutional standards otherwise, with interconnection and incentive risk addressed directly rather than assumed away.
Representative clean-energy work includes a $52,688,000 green carbon project evaluation and renewable-energy feasibility within the firm's USDA REAP and B&I practice. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
A complete microgrid feasibility study addresses every layer of the project stack: the host load, the generation and storage assets serving it, the contract or ownership structure binding them together, and the financing that must be serviced from the net cash position. Because the revenue case rests on avoided costs rather than arm's-length sales, the study must reconstruct what the host would have paid under its existing tariff and demonstrate, interval by interval, what the microgrid actually displaces.
Demand analysis for microgrids & distributed energy feasibility studies is not a population-growth exercise. The relevant market is the host load itself and, where the project sells excess generation, the wholesale or retail offtake market adjacent to it. The analyst builds the demand case from primary operational data first and corroborates it with external sources second.
Host-load evidence comes from twelve to thirty-six months of interval meter data pulled directly from the utility account or the facility energy management system. Where a new facility is being underwritten, load is estimated from equipment schedules, occupancy assumptions, and comparable-facility benchmarks drawn from ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager or DOE Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey data—each assumption labeled and stress-tested rather than accepted at face value.
For projects with a grid-export or virtual-power-plant component, the analyst reviews the applicable utility's interconnection queue filings, wholesale market price history from the relevant ISO or RTO, and any executed or draft power purchase agreements. Utility integrated resource plans and state public utility commission dockets are reviewed to assess curtailment risk and the durability of net-metering or export tariffs over the study horizon. Competitive supply is assessed through FERC Form 1 data, state interconnection registries, and any announced projects within the same load-serving entity territory that could compress future avoided-cost margins.
Four inputs account for the majority of coverage-ratio movement in a distributed energy financial model. A study that does not isolate and stress each of them independently has not answered the underwriting question.
Every assumption is sourced, labeled, and linked in the Excel model so a reviewer can substitute their own view without rebuilding the file.
Lender concerns for this project type differ from those for a conventional commercial real estate or operating-business loan because the revenue stream is synthetic—it is avoided cost, not a third-party payment—and because the collateral includes equipment with a technology-obsolescence dimension that real property does not carry.
SBA lenders underwriting to SOP 50 10 8 require that the feasibility study demonstrate 1.15x operating coverage and 1.00x global coverage. For a microgrid, that means the avoided-cost savings and any contracted payments must cover debt service at those thresholds under the base case, with the sensitivity package showing where coverage breaks. The SBA analyst will also scrutinize whether the host-load commitment is contractually secured or merely projected.
USDA REAP engagements carry additional documentation requirements: energy-production estimates must follow agency guidance, the simple payback calculation must be presented on the form the agency prescribes, and the incentive stack must be disclosed in full. USDA B&I engagements apply the same coverage discipline as conventional loans but add the agency's collateral-adequacy review, which for distributed energy assets requires an independent assessment of residual equipment value.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus heavily on the offtake-contract term relative to the loan term, the creditworthiness of the energy services agreement counterparty, and the enforceability of the lender's security interest in generation assets that may be subject to utility interconnection agreements. The study addresses each of these directly, with interconnection and incentive risk stated as conditions rather than assumed away.
The engagement begins with a fixed, quoted fee delivered within one business day of inquiry. The fee does not vary with the study's conclusion, and no portion of it is contingent on a favorable finding. Wert-Berater's fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency; the borrower's preference for a particular outcome does not influence the determination.
Work begins when a complete data room is assembled. For a microgrid or distributed energy project, that data room must include interval load data, the current utility tariff and any applicable standby or interconnection schedule, the proposed system design and equipment specifications, the draft or executed energy services agreement or ownership documents, and the incentive applications or award letters. Incomplete data rooms are the single most common cause of delay; the engagement letter specifies exactly what is required so the sponsor can prepare in advance.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. Rush delivery is available and is discussed at the time of engagement. The final deliverable package—bound narrative report, ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis, interest-rate stress, ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data, and an explicit statement of conditions—is published to a secure client portal. The Excel model remains live in the portal and recalculates when inputs change, so a lender's credit officer can run their own stress scenarios without requesting a revised file. The statement of conditions identifies every assumption that must hold for the base-case coverage to be achieved, giving the lender a clear checklist for loan-closing due diligence.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of inquiry. It does not vary with the study's finding, and no portion is contingent on a favorable conclusion. Because scope varies with project complexity—system size, tariff structure, number of generation technologies, and program requirements such as USDA REAP—the firm quotes after a brief intake conversation rather than publishing a single price.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. The most common source of delay is an incomplete data room—missing interval load data, an unsigned interconnection agreement, or absent incentive documentation. The engagement letter specifies exactly what is required. Rush delivery is available and is discussed at the time of engagement.
The revenue stream is avoided cost rather than a third-party payment, which means the analyst must reconstruct what the host would have paid under its existing tariff and demonstrate that the microgrid actually displaces it interval by interval. Standby tariffs, interconnection conditions, contract-term mismatch with the loan amortization, and technology-obsolescence risk in battery and inverter assets each add underwriting complexity that a simple solar-only PPA project does not carry.
REAP requires both an energy assessment or audit and, for larger loan guarantees, a feasibility study prepared to agency standards. The feasibility study must include energy-production documentation, a prescribed simple-payback calculation, and full incentive disclosure. Wert-Berater prepares REAP feasibility studies to 7 CFR Part 5001 requirements; the energy assessment is a separate technical document typically prepared by a licensed engineer.
It depends on the program. SBA SOP 50 10 8 and USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 share a common analytical framework but have different coverage minimums, documentation requirements, and forms. Where a project is being submitted to both agencies simultaneously, the study is structured to satisfy the more demanding requirements of each, with program-specific sections clearly delineated so each reviewer finds what their checklist requires.
At minimum: twelve to thirty-six months of interval meter data from the utility account, the current tariff including any standby or interconnection schedule, the proposed system design and equipment specifications, the draft or executed energy services agreement or ownership documents, and any incentive applications or award letters. The engagement letter itemizes the full data-room checklist so the sponsor can prepare before work begins.
Financing resource. See the SBA ITL Energy Guarantee overview for qualifying energy businesses. Microgrid or distributed-energy activity alone does not establish eligibility, and financing remains subject to SBA requirements and lender underwriting.
Behind-the-meter generation and on-site resilience are frequently driven by a single anchor tenant. For computing loads, the underlying demand, phasing and interconnection assumptions are examined in our data center site feasibility study work.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.